Judge delays decision on new sentence for ex-sheriff Carona

Share this:

Former Orange County Sheriff Mike Carona holds his wife Deborah’s hand as they emerge from the US Courthouse in Santa Ana following Carona being handed a sentence of 5 1/2 years in prison and a fine of $125,000. The sentence was handed down by U.S. District Judge Andrew Guilford in April 2009.

SANTA ANA – A federal judge on Monday put off determining whether former Orange County Sheriff Mike Carona’s prison sentence should be cut in half or more.

As members of Carona’s family looked on, U.S. District Judge Andrew Guilford heard about 90 minutes of arguments from attorneys on the 66-month sentence for witness tampering. Guilford said he would take the matter under submission, and with a nod to Carona’s son, a teen when the sentence was handed down in 2009, added he would reach a conclusion in a timely manner.

“The amount he has grown since the trial shows the time that has passed, “Guilford said.

Carona’s attorneys argued in court documents in November that the original sentence needed to be recalculated in light of a 2009 Supreme Court decision that they say overturned the sentencing practice applied in this case. They urged the judge to set aside the sentence he handed down in April 2009 and resentence Carona in the range of 24 to 30 months – a sentence that could have made Carona eligible for release immediately.

Federal prosecutors asked Guilford not to do so, arguing among other reasons that Carona’s request ignored the evidence and the facts of the case and had no legal grounds.

Carona was tried and convicted of trying to persuade former top aide Don Haidl to lie for him during a spreading federal investigation of corruption in the Sheriff’s Department.

In January 2009, a federal jury in Guilford’s court found Carona not guilty of five counts related to corruption but convicted him of witness tampering.

After an appellate court upheld his conviction in January 2011, Carona surrendered at a federal prison in Colorado and began serving his sentence. If his current sentence holds, he would likely not be eligible for release until late 2015.

On Monday, Guilford focused attorneys’ arguments on the issue of bribery. Prosecutors and defense attorneys agreed that Carona encouraged Haidl to lie, but they differed on what the lies aimed to cover up. Defense attorney John Cline maintained that Carona encouraged Haidl only to lie about secret gifts Haidl had given him. Without Haidl receiving anything in return, the undisclosed conflict of interest wasn’t a bribe and didn’t meet the definition of fraud refined by a 2009 Supreme Court decision, Cline said.

“The lie was about something we now know wasn’t a crime at all,” he said.

Cline suggested that, should a new sentencing hearing take place, the judge should consider Carona’s prison record as evidence of rehabilitation.

“The court might find … that Mr. Carona is a somewhat different man than he was when you sentenced him four years ago,” he said.

On the matter of bribery, Assistant U.S. Attorney Brett Sagel said previous hearings had clearly shown the two-way nature of Carona and Haidl’s relationship. In return for cash payments and other gifts to Carona, Haidl received the position of assistant sheriff, a police car, full police powers, business opportunities and special consideration in criminal offenses of his family, Sagel said.

The stream of benefits going both ways, Sagel said, met the definition of bribery and was already established during the original sentencing hearing.

“There is no honest analysis that could say it was not about bribery at the sentencing hearing,” he said.